<span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Dear Peter,</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">   
    here below my remaining comments.</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><b> 313.0-Y-3
       SLS-16: </b></span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">You state: <<
</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:blue;font-family:sans-serif">We
will amend the text in the Org & Proc, Sec 5.2.7 (or other more appropriate
Sec) to say something to the effect of "Some cross-area SIGs, with
responsibility for certain long-term technical topics, such as certain
sets of registries, may be titled "Expert Groups" and persist
for years.  Cross area Expert Groups will require approval of the
affected ADs."</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;color:red;font-family:sans-serif">Amended
text to be provided.</span><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">
>></span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">I think you are
the best to propose the amendment to Org&Proc.</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><b> 313.2-Y-2
       SLS-09</b></span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">It is clear that
the (red) suggestion proposed on 2 April is fine with me as I know very
well the author :o)</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">I think is is
up to the other CESGers to comment.</span>
<br>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"><b>313.2-Y-2  
     EJB 4</b></span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">For</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:12pt"><b>3.2.14 </b>Every Working Group that
defines or modifies a registry shall use that registry during any interoperability
testing that is required prior to publication of the standard. </span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">my cent is the
folllowing</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:blue"><b>3.2.14 </b>Every Working
Group that defines or modifies a registry shall </span><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:red">perform
proper</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:blue"> interoperability
testing</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:red"> (possibly between
more agencies) of the affected registries and report results in the Interoperability
Test Report </span><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:blue">that is required
</span><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:red">for </span><span style=" font-size:12pt;color:blue">publication
of the standard. </span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Best regards</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Gian Paolo</span>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">From:
       </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">"Shames,
Peter M\(US 312B\) via CESG" <cesg@mailman.ccsds.org></span>
<br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">To:
       </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">"Barkley,
Erik J (US 3970)" <erik.j.barkley@jpl.nasa.gov></span>
<br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">Cc:
       </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">"CCSDS
Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec" <cesg@mailman.ccsds.org></span>
<br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">Date:
       </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">16-04-20
18:35</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">Subject:
       </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">Re:
[CESG] Revisions to the three SANA documents as the result of the CESG
review and PID resolution</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">Sent
by:        </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">"CESG"
<cesg-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org></span>
<br>
<hr noshade>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">[attachment "CESG
Poll unresolved issues 313x0,1,2 & 315x1 16Apr20.xlsx" deleted
by Gian Paolo Calzolari/esoc/ESA] </span>
<br>
<p style=";■@¨■ì"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Hi
Erik, Gippo, et al,</span></p>
<p style=";■@¨휔ì"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style=";■@¨瀋ì"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">While
reviewing the PID resolutions that Erik accepted, and marking them green
to signify that they are, in fact, accepted, I realized that one of them
requires further work.  Please review row 42: 313.2-Y-2, EJB 4, "How
to use registries during testing".  The current "resolution"
asks for specific feedback "Please provide a succinct statement of
what you think this would look like.  The intent was to adhere to
the CCSDS A02.1-Y-4 language in sec 6.2.6, approval criteria and interoperability
testing."</span></p>
<p style=";■@¨■ì"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style=";■@¨■ì"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">I'd
like for Erik and the other CESG members to propose some language for this
interoperability testing requirement that you would find acceptable.  The
current text in this section, 3.2.14, says this:</span></p>
<br><span style=" font-size:12pt"><b>3.2.14 </b>Every Working Group that
defines or modifies a registry shall use that registry during any interoperability
testing that is required prior to publication of the standard. </span>
<br><span style=" font-size:12pt">NOTE – This does not necessarily require
exercise of any programmatic interfaces as part of interoperability testing,
but it does require the registry to exist, be populated with relevant data,
and be used for its intended purpose during testing. </span>
<p style="¿-■■/╪N¿       N¿     .╠¶■;■@¨謹ì"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"><u>Once
this is resolved the only remaining open issues are those that Gippo raised.
 Gippo, can we ask you to review these proposed PID resolutions and
either accept them or propose alternative wordings?</u></span></p>
<p style="¿-■■/╪N¿       N¿     .╠¶■;■@¨■ì"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="¿-■■/╪N¿       N¿     .╠¶■;■@¨■ì"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Thanks,
Peter</span></p>
<p style="¿-■■/╪N¿       N¿     .╠¶■;■@¨渲ì"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="¿-■■/╪N¿       N¿     .╠¶■;■@¨病ì"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="¿-■■/╪N¿       N¿     .╠¶■;■@¨■ì"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="¿-■■/╪N¿       N¿     .╠¶■;■@¨■ì"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="¿-■■/╪N¿       N¿     .╠¶■;■@¨ⓜì"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style="¿-■■/╪N¿       N¿     .╠¶■;■@¨■ì"><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri"><b>From:
</b>Erik Barkley <erik.j.barkley@jpl.nasa.gov><b><br>
Date: </b>Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 4:51 PM<b><br>
To: </b>Peter Shames <peter.m.shames@jpl.nasa.gov><b><br>
Cc: </b>CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg@mailman.ccsds.org><b><br>
Subject: </b>RE: Revisions to the three SANA documents as the result of
the CESG review and PID resolution</span></p>
<p style=";■@¨■ì"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style=";■@¨■è"><span style=" font-size:14pt;font-family:Georgia">Peter,</span></p>
<p style=";■@¨■è"><span style=" font-size:14pt;font-family:Georgia"> </span></p>
<p style=";■@¨■è"><span style=" font-size:14pt;font-family:Georgia">With
respect to the conditions/PIDs I raised on these documents I am okay moving
ahead as indicated in the spreadsheet attached in your original email.</span></p>
<p style=";■@¨■è"><span style=" font-size:14pt;font-family:Georgia"> </span></p>
<p style=";■@¨■è"><span style=" font-size:14pt;font-family:Georgia">Best
regards,</span></p>
<p style=";■@¨■è"><span style=" font-size:14pt;font-family:Georgia">-Erik</span></p>
<p style=";■@¨■è"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"><b>From:</b>
CESG <cesg-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Shames,
Peter M (US 312B) via CESG<b><br>
Sent:</b> Thursday, April 9, 2020 14:51<b><br>
To:</b> CCSDS Engineering Steering Group - CESG Exec <cesg@mailman.ccsds.org><b><br>
Subject:</b> [EXTERNAL] [CESG] Revisions to the three SANA documents as
the result of the CESG review and PID resolution<b><br>
Importance:</b> High</span></p>
<p style=";■@¨■è"><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style=";■@¨■è"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Dear
CESG members,</span></p>
<p style=";■@¨■è"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style=";■@¨■è"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">As
I think you are all aware, the recent CESG review of the three draft SANA
document produced a set of PIDs.  We had one CESG telecon a week ago
that resolved all of the PIDs for the SANA Procedures (CCSDS 313.0-Y).
 These resolutions affected some of the PIDs on the other two docs
as well, but we do not yet have complete closure.  We are waiting
for agreement, or follow-up, from Erik Barkley and Gippo Calzolari.  We
expect to resolve this via email.</span></p>
<p style=";■@¨■è"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style=";■@¨■<span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">During
the CESG discussion a concern was raised that the workflow for registry
approval and promotion was not as agreed (see row 17).  After analysis
it became evident that there are some dis-connects between the way that
the this work flow is described in the SANA Procedures (CCSDS 313.0-Y)
and in the Registry Management Policy (RMP, CCSDS 313.1-Y) versus how they
are described in the Procedures for SANA Registry Specification (PSRS,
CCSDS 313.2-Y).  As Mario pointed out, maintaining consistency does
take diligence.</span></p>
<p style=";■@¨■è"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style=";■@¨■è"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">After
analyzing these three documents it is pretty clear to me that the workflow
captured in the PSRS is disjoint from how it is described in the SANA Procedures
and the RMP.  That was not the case in the original documents, as
submitted for processing.  I have prepared a set of edits to the PSRS
that rectifies this and this is now being reviewed by the SSG.  There
are some changes, but they are not extensive, and they have been reviewed
with the SANA Operator.</span></p>
<p style=";■@¨■è"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style=";■@¨■è"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Meanwhile,
I have attached the latest edits to the PID tracking spreadsheet here.
 With Mario's concurrence we now just have the EJB and GPC proposed
resolutions (column J) to reach closure on.  I ask you to review the
tab labelled "Summary of Final Edits".  This includes the
following:</span></p>
<p style=";■@¨■è"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style=";■@¨■è"><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">1)
     </span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">All
of the items that we reviewed last week that were not initially accepted
and needed discussion, and the </span><span style=" font-size:11pt;color:#82c168;font-family:Calibri"><b>agreed
dispositions from last week marked in green like this</b></span></p>
<p style=";■@¨■è"><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">2)
     </span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">All
of the items that were not initially accepted, and that we did not get
to review last week, with proposed dispositions are in black text in Col
J, along with some </span><span style=" font-size:11pt;color:red;font-family:Calibri">added
notes</span></p>
<p style=";■@¨■è"><span style=" font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">3)
     </span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">For
completeness I added in all of the items from the original set of PIDs
that were initially accepted and require document edits.  These are
highlighted in green in Col C and the already agreed dispositions are in
Col H, also </span><span style=" font-size:11pt;color:#82c168;font-family:Calibri"><b>marked
in green</b></span><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">.</span></p>
<p style=";■@¨■è"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style=";■@¨■è"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">This
was done so that the complete set of changes for all documents is in one
place.  The only exceptions were those where more extensive edits
were needed, as in the PSRS issues just mentioned (row 17 & 34) and
the changes to the CCSDS Org & Proc, A02x1y4, which have not yet been
processed (row 26).  These are highlighted in yellow. </span></p>
<p style=";■@¨■è"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style=";■@¨■è"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">For
anyone who is interested, I have the files representing the original PID
submissions, with each of the items broken out and identified as to how
they are dispositioned (or proposed) as captured in this master spreadsheet.
 Ask me if you want to see this for traceability.</span></p>
<p style=";■@¨■è"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style=";■@¨■è"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"><b><i>In
order to move ahead with this I would like to ask Eric and Gippo to review
their PIDs and indicate if there are any that they disagree with.  Can
I ask that this be done by next Tuesday, 14 April?</i></b></span></p>
<p style=";■@¨■è"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style=";■@¨■è"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri">Thanks,
Peter</span></p>
<p style=";■@¨■è"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span></p>
<p style=";■@¨쮂è"><span style=" font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><tt><span style=" font-size:10pt">_______________________________________________<br>
CESG mailing list<br>
CESG@mailman.ccsds.org<br>
</span></tt><a href="https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cesg"><tt><span style=" font-size:10pt">https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cesg</span></tt></a><tt><span style=" font-size:10pt"><br>
</span></tt></p>
<p style="─¯■碱■■/ħƒî╝¯■■/°iè;■@¨쐊è"></p>
<p style="─¯■碱■■/ħƒî╝¯■■/°iè;■@¨쐊è"></p> <PRE>This message is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. It may contain proprietary information and/or
protected content. Any unauthorised disclosure, use, retention or dissemination is prohibited. If you have received
this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately. ESA applies appropriate organisational measures to protect
personal data, in case of data privacy queries, please contact the ESA Data Protection Officer (dpo@esa.int).
</PRE>